John Bercow, the controversial speaker accused of bullying, will forever be a symbol of Brexit division

Being seen as pro-Labour and pro-Remain was terrible for the authority of the speaker. But Leavers ought to be grateful to Bercow, because he gave the Remainers in the Commons full scope to try to frustrate Brexit

The mark in history left by John Bercow was always going to be a controversial one. The news that Lord Lisvane, clerk of the House of Commons for the early part of Bercow’s speakership, has filed a complaint about bullying complicates matters further.

Previous allegations against Bercow were never conclusively investigated but this one could be pursued by the House of Lords Appointments Commission if Bercow is nominated for a peerage by Jeremy Corbyn, as reported by The Sunday Times.

Whatever happens, it seems that Bercow, who was at the centre of the constitutional struggle over Brexit, is going to continue to be a symbol of division for years to come.

A fair-minded view of his role ought to record that all he ever did was to allow the majority in the House of Commons to express itself. By allowing the innovation of legislation against the government from the back benches, he gave the sovereign Commons the power to block a no-deal exit from the EU.

He infuriated Brexiteers by breaking with precedent, saying: “If we were guided only by precedent, manifestly nothing in our procedures would ever change.” But there were also occasions when he refused to allow amendments proposed by Remainers to be debated.

In a way, Leavers ought to be grateful to him because he gave the Remainers in the Commons full scope to try to frustrate Brexit – and they nearly succeeded. But if the speaker had allowed the government to block the majority in the Commons, there might have been a lingering bitterness that democracy had been denied. As it is, Boris Johnson was able to appeal to the higher authority of the voters to overcome their opposition.

Unfortunately for Bercow, he was not particularly good at maintaining the appearance of impartiality. He was put in his place largely by the votes of Labour MPs and was increasingly seen by the Conservative side as working for the opposition. David Cameron couldn’t stand him; Theresa May regarded him with glowering resentment; Boris Johnson made no pretence about being glad to see the back of him.

Being seen as pro-Labour and pro-Remain was terrible for the authority of the speaker. No matter how defensible each of his rulings on procedure was, they were undermined by the perception of his biases.

That said, he was undoubtedly a reforming speaker, who opened up some of the secretive gentlemen’s club that used to run parliament, and he took seriously his role in allowing the whole House to hold the government to account, forcing ministers to come to the dispatch box to answer more UQs – urgent questions – than ever before. Indeed, he took backbenchers’ rights too far even for most backbenchers. The majority of MPs are thoroughly relieved that Prime Minister’s Questions has now reverted to half an hour instead of the 50 minutes that had become the norm.

Whatever happens to the bullying allegations, which he denies, his record will always be tarnished by the perception of bias. Of course it was petty of Johnson to refuse to elevate him to the peerage (an honour conferred on all recent speakers) but it would be worse to be nominated by the leader of the opposition on a post-election list usually reserved for Labour Party worthies.

Why a modernising speaker should want to be in an unelected house of cronies anyway is perhaps the greatest mystery of all.